Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the influence of normative ideas on the behaviour of states occupy an evermore significant place in political science and international relations, important questions remain with respect to how international norms come into existence. International norm scholars have been criticized for failing to demonstrate how actors might forge and change norms. How do norm entrepreneurs influence the process of norm development? Further, under what conditions are norm entrepreneurs likely to be successful in norm diffusion? To begin answering these questions, this paper draws on constructivist insights to present a model of norm evolution highlighting the role of the norm entrepreneur and conducts an interpretive case study methodology to provide an empirical illustration. It examines the evolution of the "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) norm with particular attention to the norm entrepreneurial role of Canadian foreign policy to highlight how norm-building processes are inextricably intertwined with agents who are engaged in fostering nonnative change. The R2P is considered to be a nonnative breakthrough in international relations and has emerged as an important instrument for upholding and promoting human security. While Canada has been praised for its leadership in promulgating the R2P, there is little empirical scholarship that links the development process of the R2P norm to Canadian foreign policy. How has Canada, with no demonstrative material capability, been able to advance the R2P on the international stage? This thesis develops an understanding of how agents can shape an international norm by acting as a "tipping agent" in the process of norm creation. It concludes by identifying the possibilities and limitations of norm entrepreneurs to influence world politics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".